September 3, 2012; Atlanta, GA, USA; Atlanta Braves center fielder Michael Bourn (24) celebrates with third baseman Juan Francisco (25) after scoring a run in the third inning against the Colorado Rockies at Turner Field. Mandatory Credit: Daniel Shirey-USA TODAY Sports

On last night’s show, we kicked things off with the news the Cleveland Indians made this week by signing Michael Bourn, and how it affected the Mets. All three of us were in favor of Bourn coming to Flushing, but at the right price. Rich made some good points about Sandy Alderson dragging his feet in negotiations, which could have led to Bourn having to choose the offer that would get him into camp quicker, while Sam also cited the MLB and the controversial language in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

What hurt the most was that Bourn preferred to play in New York, but the process of getting the 11th overall pick protected for the Mets would have dragged through at least the first two or three weeks at camp. So, I don’t blame Bourn for taking the deal with Cleveland so he didn’t have to wait until March to get on a field. Were you one of the people that felt signing Bourn would have been a big mistake? At least give us a listen to see why we think it could’ve made sense.

After venting about the Bourn saga, we welcomed Greg Prince, author and blogger, onto the show. He gave us some background about the very successful blog he writes for, Faith and Fear in Flushing, as the site’s eight-year anniversary is coming up this weekend.

Greg’s passion about our beloved New York Mets was very clear, but his knowledge of Mets history was incredible, as he puts a lot of effort and detail into honoring all of the memorable moments of the past. He also gave us a great summary as to what his second book, The Happiest Recap, is all about. To grab a copy of Greg’s latest publication, you can head to the Amazon link right here.

To all of those who listened to the show live, we truly appreciate you taking the time to listen to us babble on about the Mets for a half hour. If you missed it and want to have something fun to listen to while at work on this Friday Eve, click on the link below and let us know what you think!

The Rising Apple Report, Ep. 7: Greg Prince from FAFIF Joins The Rising Apple Report

Thanks for reading! Be sure to Like Rising Apple’s Facebook page and follow @RisingAppleBlog on Twitter to keep up with the latest news, rumors, and opinion.

October 2, 2012; Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Atlanta Braves center fielder Michael Bourn (24) reacts at the batting cage before playing the Pittsburgh Pirates at PNC Park. Mandatory Credit: Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports

Point 1: The Mets decided that Bourn was too expensive, and were right to walk away. Bourn is not worth $60 million over 5 years.

Counterpoint 1: The Mets’ offer was 4 years/$48 million, not 5/$60 million. So if one is going to assess return on investment, the 4/48 figure should be used. Next, this was not a case of strategically deciding that acquiring a player was not in the best interest of the organization. Such an example would be refusing to trade Wheeler or Harvey for Justin Upton. The Bourn case is an example of gambling, and losing. The Mets figured they were the primary game in Bourn’s town, and attempted to use time, and Bourn’s uncertainty, to force Bourn/Boras to accept an offer on the Mets’ terms. All accounts suggest that the Mets and Bourn had reached an agreement on the years and dollars, and then were ready to put a case before an arbitrator to resolve the draft pick issue. Upon finding out that the case would take 2-3 weeks to resolve, Bourn walked. He walked all the way to Cleveland. If the Mets had relented, and put their best offer on the table around the beginning of February, the 2-3 week resolution time may not have been a mitigating factor to Bourn’s agreeing to playing in Queens. This one may have been mishandled by Sandy Alderson.

Point 2: Bourn does not make enough of a difference to sign him right now. The Mets are not one player away. Bourn could, at most, give the Mets 5-8 more wins, and they still won’t make the playoffs.

Counterpoint 2: The above reasoning is curious. It’s fully agreed that Bourn is NOT a savior, and that, at best, the Mets would win 5-8 more games with him. However, the Mets put a 4-year contract on the table. That’s 4 years. Bourn would still be a Met when the Mets’ plan is expected to come together, in 2014 or beyond. I simply can’t understand evaluating a 4-year signing in the first year. If the organization expects the plan to come to fruition in a year or two, Bourn would be a central piece in that plan as a CF and lead off hitter.

Point 3: It’s not wise to give contracts to players who rely on speed when they’re over 30.

Counterpoint 3: Not exactly sure when 30 year-olds qualified for the AARP. In fact, some well-known base stealers had outstanding years after age 30. From his 30th to 34th birthdays, Lou Brock stole 53, 51, 64, 63, and 70 bases. In the same years of his life, Rickey Henderson stole 77, 65, 58, 48, and 53 bases. Speed players can be productive after 30.

Point 4: Bourn strikes out to much. His OBP is not good for a lead off hitter.

Counterpoint 4: Bourn does strike out too much. His 155 Ks in 2012 are alarming. Bourn also walks only about 10% of the time, looking at BB/PA. Context is important. Is Bourn a better option at lead-off than the players the Mets have? A firm argument can be made that Bourn is a much better option than Baxter, Tejada, or Murphy, if for no other reason than Bourn’s ability to steal bases. How about this point? There would have been opportunistic benefits to having Bourn bat lead-off. His presence would have allowed the Mets to bat Tejada second, where his patience and bat control would make Ruben an even more productive player, due to his ideal slotting in the order. Also, Murphy could have been dropped to 6th, where he can drive in more runs than he can toward the top of the order. The Mets need Murphy’s “doubles ability” in a place where he can drive in more runs.

Point 5: Let Bourn walk, let’s see what other options Sandy can turn up for the OF.

Counterpoint 5: I think all fans will unite behind the idea that the Mets must improve the OF. Bourn is off the table. So, what’s the plan? Internal options (beyond Matt Den Dekker) don’t seem to be there. The 2014 FA class for OFs may include Carlos Beltran, Jeff Francoeur, and Curtis Granderson. You can see the full list here. It’s not clear that any of these players may fit the Mets’ needs and budget. Then there’s the trade route. To get a starting OF, teams will likely want youth in return. The Mets have shown a reluctance to trade the true strength of their youth, starting pitching. So if the trade route is the path to an improved OF, what pieces can the Mets trade to return quality OFs? Bourn would have solved 1/3 of the problem. It may be easier to fill two spots than three.

The debates have been fun. The outcome of the Bourn saga may not have been, for some of the fans anyway. Yes, it is time to move on. But whatever we do, let’s continue discussing The New York Mets. It’s part of being a fan, and a quality of baseball that makes the game so unique.

Thanks for reading! Please like the Rising Apple page of Facebook, and follow us on Twitter @RisingAppleBlog.

(more…)